« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama blames Republicans again, but some breaking news hampers his schtick

Peter Barnes and Major Garrett from Fox News report:

While praising his own team for pioneering “ambitious” financial reform and “sweeping” economic recovery initiatives, the president took some pointed shots at Republicans who are now blasting the latest package as a spend-crazy “stimulus two” that will drill deeper into the deficit. 

“We were forced to take those steps (to jump-start the economy) largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that had led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve,” Obama said, starting his address with a history lesson on the roots of the recession. 

Now for the breaking news promised in the headline – you know, I’ll have to check my notes, but didn’t Democrats take over the House and Senate in 2006, while unemployment was around 4.7% and the stock market was about 30% higher than it is now?

Of course, since the statement above wasn’t quite enough, Obama decides to whine / channel Orwell a little more:

Obama said the crisis was caused not just by economic weakness but the “weakness in our political system” — one corroded by the “bitterness of partisanship,” and the “endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges.” 

“We’ve seen the consequences of this failure of responsibility. The American people have paid a heavy price,” Obama said, calling the nation’s unemployment a “human tragedy.” 

If I may, I would like to offer a correction to the bitterly partisan, endlessly campaigning Teleprompter In Chief, and it is this – we are seeing the consequences of a failure of responsibility. The American people are paying a heavy price.

Carry on, Mr. Obama. By the way, the over / under on when you quit blaming others and take responsibility is 2032. I have the house on the over.

COMMENTS

  • penguin2

    I mean he sounds ludicrous. If he and the Left think we don’t know better, he needs to get some new advisers. They are obviously not following the poll numbers. The sad thing, more detrimental effects are to come and the people will wonder why they ever believed this man or the Dems. BTW, did you mean 2012 in your last line?

    • Jack_Savage

      But his little speech, along with Reid’s is an indication of desperation and an attempt to pull an Alinsky by demonizing Republicans (and pulling the race card in Reid’s case). Problem is they have been to that well too many times.

      I meant 2032, and I am still taking the over.

  • izoneguy

    of implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy that he has studied since high school. And the democrats who fell for Obama are the biggest suckers of all. The democratic party has been hijacked by a Marxist and they are not going to get it back. That is why it is important to not let the Republican party get hijacked by the moderates & democrats fleeing the new Stalin.

  • sharonmcp

    …republicans and the previous administration for the financial mess we’re in, that HIS Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geither, was in it up to his eyeballs?

    From the Family Research Council blog:

    ?Timothy Geithner, 47, has had a seat at the table since the credit crisis erupted in August 2007 and eventually sparked the deep economic downturn the nation is facing now. As a result, at least until his confirmation hearing, he?ll be criticized for having a major role in a government response that hasn?t always instilled confidence in financial markets ? even if it prevented a wider financial meltdown. As the Fed?s man on Wall Street, Mr. Geithner was a key architect of the $30 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of Bear Stearns Cos., leading to charges the government was stoking moral hazard. He shaped the Fed?s lifeline to investment banks that followed, and was among the officials involved in assessing the implications of the troubles around Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings, American International Group and numerous other firms (from Wachovia to Citigroup) that have come under market pressure.?

    But hey, that’s not surprising considering that during his speech at West Point last Tuesday he bad-mouthed the previous administration for ‘not meeting the needs of the troops in Afghanistan’ in the last few years of Bush’s presidency.

    Hmm, let’s see, who was the Secretary of Defense at that time?

    Oh yeah, Robert Gates!